US launches Tomahawks on Syrian airbases

a reply to: Peserc

Some eyewitness accounts say a Syrian jet hit a rebel chemical weapons cache,the question is did they know or not know whether it was there?

I'm hearing no Russian casualties. Good! Still early tho so who knows. No idea who to believe anymore on anything.

a reply to: Ohanka

I haven't heard of Tomahawks ever having cameras. That claim sounds pretty dubious.

i guess that's because it didn't come from armchair expert hunh?

The Block IV missile is capable of loitering over a target area in order to respond to emerging targets or, with its on-board camera, provide battle damage information to warfighting commanders. Tomahawk Block IV is currently in Full Rate Production. Tomahawk provides on-scene commander with the flexibility to attack long-range fixed targets or support Special Operations Forces with a lethal, responsive, precision weapon system and as such has become the weapon of choice for the U.S. Department of Defense.
Tomahawk

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: gmacev
If Trump still hasn't understood that Russia don't want to fight ISIS and never did, he soon will. All Russia wants to do is to keep Asad in power and worsen the refugee crisis. Trump is on a 180° rampage.

To keep Al-Assad in power you kind of have to fight the Islamic State, them being the major opponents to his government and everything.

I guess Iran backs the Islamic State too, mortal enemies usually help each other all the time after all.

Some people are just plain Amazing !!!

One of the members called Syrian Military "COWARDS" for evacuating the Airbase before the attack.

If they stood there and gracefully embraced the Cruise missiles to their face they would have been very much brave???? what kind of a logic is this?

no thanks. they would instead reserve their chances to fight against ISIS and US-supported terrorists like FSA instead.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Aproval ratings nearing 30% demands war, presidential school 101.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Pin-Head internet babbler had the wrong airbase in his silly video.

It was here 34.5176985,37.6070374.

Hardly anyone online knows what the fack they're talking about.

a reply to: khnum
damn. who gave the rebels chemical weapons in the first place?

a reply to: khnum

Yep half a year ago,or six months to make it sound recent.

originally posted by: Peserc
a reply to: khnum
damn. who gave the rebels chemical weapons in the first place?

Saudi Arabia. A bunch of them were captured by the Syrian Army following the liberation of East Aleppo.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Hardly anyone online knows what the fack they're talking about.

Welcome to 2017. Do YOU even know what you're talking about? That's the fun part about this. Who really knows WTF is going on anymore??!

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

sounds par for the course.

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: xstealth
Red lines arn't for the US to make,there are laws agains actions like this
god forbid all countries bombed each other when ever they felt justified.
An investigation was the proper route
but without the evidence,now smouldering, thats out of the question
Hmm..curious if there is any Chemical fallout from the strikes.
ya lets bomb and potentially release more chemicals
we care about Syrians, ffs

oh please, no one enforces international law.

So what's all this fuss about chemical weapons?

International law only matters when it suits you? People like you give the USA a bad name me thinks...

a reply to: haman10

CORRECTION: no thanks. they would instead reserve their chances to fight against US-supported terrorists like ISIS and FSA instead.

a reply to: Riffrafter

What makes sense anymore? Nothing does. This is all crazy. These proxy wars are insane. I wouldnt be surprised if the Rebels blew their own stash killing all civilians nearby knowing the blame would be put on Assad?

And if Assad really did attack a chemical weapons storage facility of the US backed Rebels, is the US really going to want the blowback of the world finding out AGAIN that the Rebels held more chemical weapons after proof that they have previously already used them in this guerilla warfare.

None of this is illogical, and all within reason. Far easier to just blame Assad and outright attack him.....because it must be the truth if they are willing to launch 50 tomahawks.

originally posted by: Peserc
guys, can`t read all the comments. one question: there are any real evidence indicating that was the syrian government who ordered the chemical airstrike?

Pentagon released the flight path of the helicopter involved

twitter.com...

a reply to: LightAssassin

Case in point: ISIL attack Syrian Air base after US attack

mobile.almasdarnews.com...

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: Peserc
guys, can`t read all the comments. one question: there are any real evidence indicating that was the syrian government who ordered the chemical airstrike?

Pentagon released the flight path of the helicopter involved

twitter.com...

Helicopter? What helicopter?

First it was a Su-22, then a Su-24, now a helicopter?

a reply to: xstealth

Even that seems contentious if you dig deeper.

So glad I live down under....and sad that I do too, why should I be protected from all this.

Tragic situation for sure. When I turn on the TV and all I see is footage from the US DOD firing missles, high resolution images of the airfield, etc, the skeptic in me immediately screams - "they want you to report this!" - obviously. They want to control the narrative.

I never know who to trust anymore, especially in the media, and that's probably part of the plan. So I did some of my own research. Again, who knows if it's all true, but I generally look at who stands the most to gain in a situation. We all know the players and seems to me that the US and the other oil rich countries in the region would very much like control of the Syrian territory for an oil pipeline (and more land for US bases near Russia). They would also love Russia to lose a very strategic port city.

That said, my research led me to the below videos. This first one is from the UN Peace Envoy's press council. It's from last year. I don't see what they have to gain from what they are saying, so I'm leaning towards them telling the truth (again, who knows..):



Non-sketchy, original video posted by the UN here:
webtv.un.org...

Here is a video from this week from CNN. Talk about pushing a narrative. Watch the reporter respond in disbelief when the congressman is simply saying he needs more information before he believes the "official story".

The reporter even goes as far as to suggest that we "bomb their airbases and runways" - did they know ahead of time? One news report I saw tonight said that the DOD has been prepping this for 2 days.

He notes that "The first thing to go in a war is the truth". She really pummels him at the end in disbelief. At one point he mentions that we've given 1 billion in aid to the rebels and how that isn't working. She quickly changes that subject (almost in a stressed out manner).



Anyway, it's all just a little too suspicious to me. I don't like propaganda, but it seems that the train has left the station on this and we're heading in a direction that could be very dangerous.

Just my two cents.

a reply to: GreenGunther

He let the UN come and take Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.

Non of this makes sense, why now when they are gaining ground?

This was a civil war, now it's a war of factions and insurgency, why would the Syrian government be openly killing it's own citizens? If they are not Syrians then they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Answering potential war crimes with more potential war crimes is nothing to applaud.

This doesn't make sense in any way, shape or form since things were beginning to move in a direction that could help end the conflict... Like having a good hand in poker then burning your cards, what kind of retard does that?